I only passed through once and am not all that familiar with the area but perhaps the answer could be a cooperative regional (rather than just Port Huron) approach coupled with some sort of corporate partnership ... Seven structures seems a rather large burden to place just on Port Huron

The article implied "negotiation" is possible. The article said this has been going on near six years. Maybe we see it in our lifetime ... or maybe our children will

Believe those who search for the truth ...
Doubt those who find it ...

Where in the NHLPS transfer requirements and deed does it give a timeline? It doesn't. They've already blown a $400,000 grant that was just awaiting the transfer, and what about the $27,000 recently raised in the fundraiser?

The city manager appears to be clueless and bull-headed. Reading through the comments on the site, the majority seem to feel the same way (strangely enough considering Michigan's economic state).

I don't believe the NPS will "renegotiate" the terms of the deed. And there should be no reason to do so. The lighthouse can be repaired immediately, and the other buildings put on hold until further funding becomes available.

On the one hand we've got Emmett County returning a lighthouse to its original state and into public use, and then we have Port Huron, who is refusing to accept their historical gem.

The biggest problem I've seen is the scare tactic use of the $4 Million dollar mark. That's obviously a 10 - 15 year plan. I don't try to name drop but the PHM Director is a close family friend of ours and he is very realistic about the economic situation of Michigan and what Port Huron is capable of. Historic preservation is possible even in these times, but I preach to the choir here, and thus I digress...

It is rather interesting the dichotomy between Emmet County and Port Huron. It's frustrating to no end.

A note about the other buildings. The housing on site is currently home to Coast Guard families. The museum has no problem with their continued residency in the houses after the transfer, as they would provide for a pair of eyes as well as someone to care for the houses interim. I'm not sure the sticky details but its a possibility.

Neighboring townships and county government might help, too. If rescuing the lighthouse isn't a goal worthy of regional cooperation, then what is?

A wise thought expressed in this very thread ...

... perhaps the answer could be a cooperative regional (rather than just Port Huron) approach coupled with some sort of corporate partnership ... Seven structures seems a rather large burden to place just on Port Huron

Believe those who search for the truth ...
Doubt those who find it ...

Greg from Port Huron: "Concerning the lighthouse restoration: Why doesn't the city ask for volunteers to do some of this work? I know I would. I know there is some work that needs to be done by professionals. But some can be done by anyone with a little guidance."

Believe those who search for the truth ...
Doubt those who find it ...

None of the NHLPA deeds that I have seen contain any temporal restrictions. Unless something has changed very recently. From my experience, the only way that there would be a timetable would be if the group which applied for the lighthouse laid out a very specific timetable in their proposal, which was then echoed in the deed.

I will see what specifics I can find out about the Fort Gratiot deed tomorrow.

I made a call to the GSA today, and it appears there are indeed time stipulations in the deed prepared by the GSA. These stipulations were carried through onto the deed only because they were part of the original NHLPA application. I have as yet been unable to obtain a copy of the deed itself, but am still awaiting a phone call from another party, and hope to have a copy in my hands within the next couple of days.

I am very familiar with the deeds the GSA prepared for the Cheboygan River Front Range Light and the St. James (Beaver Island Harbor) lighthouse, and can report that were no such time stipulations included in the NHLPA applications for these two lights, and as such there were none carried through into the GSA's deeds. There is a definite lesson to be learned here by any entity applying for a lighthouse under the auspices of the Act.

I will post later when I am able to shed more light on this continuing, and unfortunate, situation.